SGU Episode 403
|
This section or episode was transcribed by the Google Web Speech API Demonstration (or another automatic method) and therefore will require careful proof-reading. |
|
This episode needs: transcription, links, 'Today I Learned' list, categories, segment redirects. Please help out by contributing! |
How to Contribute |
| SGU Episode 403 |
|---|
| 6th Apr 2013 |
 |
| (brief caption for the episode icon) |
| Skeptical Rogues |
| S: Steven Novella |
B: Bob Novella |
R: Rebecca Watson |
J: Jay Novella |
E: Evan Bernstein |
| Guest |
IO: Ian O'Neill |
| Quote of the Week |
Design in nature is but a concatenation of accidents, culled by natural selection until the result is so beautiful or effective as to seem a miracle of purpose. |
| Links |
| Download Podcast |
| SGU Podcast archive |
| Forum Discussion |
Introduction
You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.
S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Monday, April 1st, 2013, and this is your host, Steve Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella...
B: Hey, everybody.
S: Rebecca Watson...
R: Hello, everyone.
S: Jay Novella...
J: Hey, guys.
S: And Evan Bernstein.
E: Good evening, my friends. How are you?
S: Good evening, Evan.
J: Hello!
R: Super.
S: So is this the first time we're actually recording a show on April 1st?
B: I think so; I think we would've remembered that if we did.
R: I don't know; I would have forced myself to forget it. I hate today; today's the worst day of the year.
S: (laughs)
B: Well, come on.
J: Why; what's going on, Rebecca?
R: In much the same way that St Patrick's Day is amateur night for drinking—
B: (laughs) nice, nice.
R: April Fool's Day is amateur night for comedians
S: For pranksters?
R: Yeah, pranks. You know what? Like 99.9 percent of pranks? Not funny or at all interesting and it's gotten even worse in recent years because it's now become this day for corporate viral videos. Like, what corporation is going to win April Fool's today?
S: Yeah.
B: Did anybody experience a good prank today or hear about one?
S: No, nothing.
B: Yeah, I got squat; what the hell's that about?
E: Didn't Google try to say that they were taking YouTube down? They were going to cease YouTube for the day or something?
R: That was a—I'll admit that was a funny video.
E: That's about all I heard.
R: They said that YouTube was just a giant contest and now they're ready to start sorting through all this submissions and they'll announce a winner in 10 years and they're taking...
E: Ten years? It'd take them a lot longer than that, I would think.
R: It was a pretty funny video.
J: Turns out it's that cat that can talk; you know, the one that was like, "oh no no". You know that one?
R: I'd be OK with that as a winner.
S: It would definitely be a cat video.
E: Yeah.
S: Just by odds alone.
J: I don't like the ones where it's actually something that gets you really upset; like, it's one thing—you could pull a prank that is just funny, but Steve is a douche for doing this, where he'll pull a prank and it'll be like, "I'm moving out of the state." You know, that's not funny.
S: I did that once.
E: That was the Perry prank!
J: Yeah, but it still sucked.
S: It took me months to build up to that prank.
E: Yeah that wasn't a one-day thing; that was a long...
S: I totally got everybody. Perry was mad at me 'til the day he died for doing that joke.
E: (laughs) He never forgave you. Never.
R: Good prank.
S: Now that's a prank worth doing.
S: (inaudible) Piss somebody off for the rest of their days; that's a good prank.
E: Steve, I would be together with Perry; we'd have lunch or dinner or something; he would be... this was years after that prank and he would be like, (imitating Perry) "Evan, how are we gonna get that guy? We really gotta get that guy for having done that. Oh, doesn't it burn you up?"
S: (chuckles)
E: He never let it go.
S: And he never got me back, unless he's somehow still alive and that was the prank.
R: (laughs) Best prank ever.
J: That would be.
R: Kaufman-esque
S: All right; well—
This Day in Skepticism (3:08)
April 6 1992: Isaac Asimov Died
R: I avoided April Fool's day in choosing This Day in History because I hate it so much. So, the day that this podcast goes up is April 6th and April 6, 1992 marks the day that Isaac Asimov died at the age 72 from complications of AIDS. Asimov is best known for his science fiction novels but he may be quote beloved by our audience for being one of the founding members of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal or CSICOP, which these days goes by CSI. He was a brilliant man; of course, he edited or wrote nearly 500 books in his lifetime across a huge variety of disciplines, including a children's book and nonfiction guide to Shakespeare. He was also a professor at Boston University, which I attended, though he was in the school of medicine. And he died 6 years before I got there.
S: At the time that I really got into Isaac Asimov, he was in his 20-year period where he was writing exclusively science books; nonfiction. He had written in science fiction when he was younger, then he took a hiatus to write nonfiction. He didn't come back to writing science fiction 'til later. So I knew him exclusively as a writer of nonfiction books until he started taking up writing fiction again and then I got into the robot series and the—
R: You're like, "who's this new writer?"
S: The Foundation series; he was awesome. The Foundation series is still a classic of science fiction. I highly recommend it for anyone who's into hard science fiction.
R: I wouldn't. I read it for the first time a couple months ago and I thought it was terrible.
S: You're missing out.
E: Just really unenjoyable
S: Really?
R: Heinlein: Way better.
S: You're insane.
R: Yeah.
(laughing)
R: I'm not contesting it.
E: Are you going to say April Fool's now, Rebecca?
R: Nope; this is 100% my true opinion. Let the hate mail come.
(laughing)
R: It was just—you know, I didn't like it because it was just this really broad view of a universe with no... there's no feeling of place or culture or character. And it really came across as what I later found out it was: was just a serialized collection of short stories that were originally just posted in a magazine.
S: Well, the story takes place over generations; yeah, there's no doubt. But you have to stick with it a little bit, first of all. And he does—
R: I read the whole first book.
S: I mean... the second and third books were much better; it just keeps getting better. And then he brings it all the way back around to his robot series earlier. It's just great. You know, he connects up the whole timeline and everything. And... what was different about it was that it took such a long view of history; it was about history. That's what the series was really about. But there are enough characters that have continuity through the stories to hold your interest.
R: Are there any women in the later books?
S: Yeah, one of the primary characters is a female, although she is a robot.
R: (laughs)
S: But you know, she's indistinguishable from a human.
E: Fem-bot.
S: And she is a heroine of the later novels. Yeah. Absolutely.
R: 'Cause I was—that was one of the annoying things about it.
S: Well, I think what you're seeing is the difference between his earlier writings from, like, the '50s and then, when he picks up again in his 70s, it's more—
R: He's a bit more mature.
S: A bit more modern in that regard and in other regards and that's when it really gets good, you know? His end-of-life science fiction writing was just epic. But yeah, if you're reading the stuff he wrote in the 1950s, you're probably going to see it as a little dated in those respects.
News Items
Fairy Circle Update (7:02)
- LiveScience: Fairy Circle Mystery Solved
S: All right; well let's move on. Evan, you're going to tell us a scientific breakthrough that might totally resolve this enduring controversy and mystery over the fairy circles.
E: If you'll recall, back in July of 2012, I had brought up a news item about fairy circles[link needed]. Fairy circles are what the local population in Namibia call the mysterious circular shape pattern which appear by the thousands in the desert grassland regions. Some people can't help but look at the pictures and think crop circles, right? However, when I first read the article, I couldn't help but think about a phenomenon known to skeptics as "fairy rings". Fairy rings are growths of mushrooms, or fungi, which appear to grow in a deliberately designed ring-shape pattern and fairy rings typically grow in these wooded grassy locations. And according to various folklores dating back hundreds of years, these ring-shaped designs were deliberately designed by magical creatures such as fairies, elves, pixies, and Argonians. I threw that one in for all the Elder Scroll fans out there, by the way. And supposedly these rings are portals or gateways to the magical realms, although we might I think that an enlightened people of the 21st century are well beyond believing in such fantasies; as skeptics we know better than to overestimate peoples grasp on reality sometimes. So... and scientist have been studying these ferry circles for some time; they were having hard time figuring out the cause but the mystery might finally have been solved. Because just a few days ago, livescience.com post a follow-up on the story that they ran last summer. The news report states that a species of sand termite called Psammotermes allocerus—and this sand termite could be behind the mysterious dirt rings. The study was published on March 28 in the journal Science. Part of what we talked about before had focused on prior studies suggesting that it might have been some kind of insect activity; perhaps ants; perhaps termites. Scientists from Germany measured the water content in the soil at the center of the circles, and they determined enough water in that soil to support termites, even in the driest season. The surveys also looked at the organ—other organisms found in the fairy circles, but the sand termite was the only creature found consistently in the majority of patches.
S: Yeah. So they said, "consistently in the majority of patches", which means not in every patch.
E: Right. So I think they're still hedging their bet a little bit here.
S: Yeah, that's the impression that I got.
E: Yeah
S: That this is pretty compelling evidence that the termites are a good candidate; they can be eating the roots of the grasses; killing them off. They're definitely changing the soil. But I don't know; I'm not convinced by this evidence that the termites are not just living in these fairy circles. I don't know that they've really proven that they're creating the fairy circles.
E: Right. And they're... The soil in fairy circles seems to be altered so that plants can't survive, whereas termites usually enrich the soil; I imagine through their poop. Yeah. Which would make it more hospitable to plants. So there's still things to be figured out about these fairy circles but the termites are present; they're the most commonly found creatures in these circles, so they are working along those lines of going with the termites.
S: Yeah, I know I've said this before—made this observation, but there's a few questions that to we cover from time to time that essentially is a genuine scientific controversy, where there's two schools of thought and they debate back and forth. What I find a little annoying is that everytime the mainstream media reports on a new study on one side of the debate or the other, they always talk as if it's settled. Like the debate's now over; this is the right answer. Meanwhile, it's just one in a long series of back and forths between the two sides, and it's a long way away from settling the debate and I wonder if this really is fitting into that same mold; if we're just hearing about the pro-termite side 'cause they're the ones who published the latest study, you know?
E: Right. Right.
R: God-damn termitists.
S: The termitists?
E: Big Insect is behind it; I'm sure.
S: OK. Thanks, Evan.
Retraction Watch (11:26)
- Retraction Watch: Why publishers should explain why papers disappear: The complicated Lewandowsky study saga
S: Rebecca, you're going to tell us about published papers that disappear from the literature.
R: Yeah, and I'm going to do it less boring way then you just implied.
S: (laughs)
R: So, Stephen Lewandowski is an Australian psychologist who writes about and researches science denialism, amongst some other topics. The SGU audience may best known him for coauthoring The Debunking Handbook, which was a free PDF essentially about how to be a good skeptic and how to communicate facts your audience and correct misconceptions. So, last year, Lewandowski released a paper titled, NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science. This study used an anonymous survey of climate blog readers to show people who believe in an unregulated market that predicts whether or not they will deny global warming—they're more likely to deny global warming, which isn't huge news. But it also showed that people who deny global warming are also more likely to believe that the moon landing wasn't real and that the government and doctors are lying and they say smoking causes lung cancer, that the government created AIDS; other conspiracy theories like that. This isn't exactly groundbreaking, in that we did discuss this study last year[link needed] that showed a similar sort of result about how people who believe in one conspiracy theory tend to believe in many conspiracy theories; that one—that study was called Dead and Alive: Beliefs in Contradictory Conspiracy Theories, but this study—the fact that it included denial of global warming as a conspiracy theory was pretty controversial, especially amongst the people who think that global warming is a giant hoax. Lewandowski's study has been replicated since it was first done and was officially published a few days ago in Psychological Science, but he released it last year. So it's been out there on the Internet. What makes this study particularly interesting is the reaction to it and also Lewandowski's reaction to the reaction. So obviously, climate change deniers were furious about the study, by and large. Many of them accuse Lewandowski of purposely fudging in the data to fit his liberal bias or they accuse climate scientists and quote-unquote "climate science believers" of pretending to be denialists in order to take the survey and make them look crazy. So in other words, they were inventing new conspiracy theories to deny the results that showed that they were more likely to be more drawn to conspiracy theories.
S: And denial.
R: Yes.
S: Right.
R: Lewandowski did not miss the irony of that, but instead of chuckling and moving on, he published another paper about that reaction to the first paper, this time titled Recursive Fury: Conspiracist Ideation in the Blogosphere in Response to Research on Conspiracist Ideation, and in that paper examines reactions and points out that some of the denialist conspiracy theories included not just the original authors of the paper but, and I quote, "University executives, a media organization, and the Australian government". He tried to trace the various theories and determine how quickly they caught on amongst the other climate deniers. So, the new paper was just published in February in Frontiers in Personality Science and Individual Differences. But now everything but the abstract has disappeared with no explanation as of this recording. Ivan Oransky, a blogger at Retraction Watch, which is retractionwatch.wordpress.com, asked the journal why it was removed and the editor told him that there was going to be a meeting this week to find out, which is odd. Odder is that when Paul Matthews of University of Nottingham asked them, he was told it was taken down just for typesetting. So now people online are clamoring to find out what's going on; if the paper hes been retracted; if it's then disappeared for good; if it's coming back. Particularly the climate change deniers are arguing that the paper should be disappeared for good because of a number of problems with it. Some are arguing that Lewandowski has a conflict of interest because the second paper is specifically looking at critical responses to his own work. But to me, the more interesting criticism they're bringing up is that—they're maintaining that Lewandowski conducted an experiment on subjects who did not consent to participate in that study. Which may not seem like a big deal, because he's dealing with blog posts and comments that were published and freely accessible. But then when you think about it, you realize that he actually names the bloggers that he discusses in the paper and then he goes on to discuss, as a psychologist in a psychology journal, those bloggers' mental states. So, I'd say that this one could at least be considered a gray area and it's certainly exploding online with a lot of anger and frustration. And, you know, the journal itself isn't helping things by, you know, just making the entire paper magically disappear with no explanation. It's only feeding into probably more conspiracy theories about what's going on. So it'll be really interesting to find out exactly what they're going to do and if the papers going to be retracted or not.
S: Yeah; it is interesting gray area; the whole notion of transparency, first of all; also, writing a—publishing a paper naming people but about things that they've put in the public domain online. You know?
R: Yeah.
S: So when you put something in the public domain, you're basically surrendering any expectation of privacy. I think that is the standard. Right?
R: Well, I would agree with that. And that's why, when I first read these accusations of consent, I didn't really give them much credence. But the fact that he is a psychologist commenting on their mental state—
S: Well, that's different.
R: —and naming them by name; you know, yeah. Like the fact that it's in a published paper in a psychological journal would imply that his summary of their mental state is accepted and complete, which I don't think is fair. So I feel like it would have been fine, so long as he had made them anonymous. I think that that probably would have taken care of a lot of those criticisms.
S: I mean, I think—at the very least, you could say it was perhaps unprofessional of him to speculate about the mental state of named people in psychological paper.
Zombie Parasites (18:31)
S: All right. Well, Bob, you're going to tell us about two of my favorite topics: Zombies and parasites, all rolled into one.
E/B: (laughs)
B: Awesome. Nice. Not only that; free will may have taken another hit with this latest research.
S: Oh boy.
E: Ouch.
B: Half of us may be zombies and not even know it. I know that sounds pretty cool, but I'm not talking about Walking Dead-style zombies. But the new research on parasites that infect the brain, or neuroparasitology, conclude that up to 40 percent of people—40 percent—may have parasites in their brain that at some level can actually control their behavior or as The Daily Telegraph puts it, "zombie reprogramming"[1].
(sounds of scoffing)
B: You know—you know there was a committee and they're like, "OK, we need a nice little sound-byte phrase that everyone's going to pick up on: zombie reprograming". Bam. All over the place.
J: So you're saying that you can have—what is it, a bacteria? What is it?
B: It's a parasite. They hitch a ride—
S: Protozoan.
B: Yeah, single-celled protozoan. They're parasites, like—
R: Like toxoplasmosis.
B: Right; exactly; I was going to talk about that and... how this can happen is that the brain—I wasn't really quite aware of this—the brain is actually a very parasite-friendly place when you consider that, once you're there, you're pretty much protected from the full power of the immune system. So once they set up shop there, they are relatively protected and you're in the brain, so you've got access to the mind. So it kind of makes sense that they will—that they can actually have some effact. And there's a lot of precedence for this too; one of my favorite examples from nature are worms that need to get into sheeps—into sheep's guts to continue to their life cycle and reproduce. So the parasite actually takes over the ant brain and makes it climb to the tippy-top of a blade of grass and just kinda hang out there and not do anything. And this is where the sheep will graze, and if it's eaten then it gets injested and it goes through and that's how it reproduces. If the ant doesn't get eaten, then by the time the sun rises and it gets really strong, it'll just go down the blade of grass; go about its business and then the next day it'll do the same thing until it gets eaten. Toxoplasmosis is another great example; I'm sure most people—you guys have heard of that, right? I mean, who hasn't heard of that?
S: Yeah.
B: This is a single-celled parasite that needs to get into the stomach of cats. So, to do that, it infects mice and it changes their brain so that they're not freaked out when they smell a cat. Instead, when they encounter a cat or cat urine, they react like it's a really hot female mouse and dopamine is released and they're not afraid of the cat at all. So they get eaten; bam—the parasite gets into the digestion and finishes its life cycle. Now, the parasite infects people too, but instead of making us think cats are really sexy, it may, according anyway to Jaroslav Flegr, who's a professor of evolution biology at the Charles University in Prague. He says—he thinks that toxoplasmosis can cause people to be more reckless and risk-averse, so they actually—from his studies he kind of showed that they get into more car accidents, for example. Or you might—these people might be more prone to—or a higher suicide risk, just because they've got this parasitic infection.
J: Can you get rid of it?
B: Once you have, I don't think we do have a way to get rid of it. Steve, have you ever heard of a way to get rid of toxoplasmosis?
S: There are antibiotics to treat toxoplasmosis, but generally, it just staves off the progression of the infection; it doesn't get rid of it. If you have AIDS, for example, and you have toxo, you may need to be on antibiotics for life.
B: All right.
S: But Bob, are you sure that this doesn't explain the raging popularity of cat videos on YouTube?
B: (laughs) Right. Oh my God, that's funny.
R: Only if you're scooping the poop of the cats that you're watching.
B: Well, actually—at least from Flegr's studies, he said that infected men become introverted, suspicious, and more likely to wear rumpled old clothes. Wow. Didn't see that one coming.
R: That's awful specific.
B: Yeah; isn't it really? But infected women are just the opposite, apparently. In one study, he says they were usually well-dressed when they arrived at the lab or for interviews. Also more trusting and sociable. And if he's correct, all because they've got this parasitic brain infection. This latest research shows that it might be related to the influenza virus itself. Binghamton University researchers infected 36 of their staff, using their staff as controls. They used a vaccine and
R: That seems like an ethical problem.
B: Yeah, but the results are cool. They studied their behavior before and after they got the shots and they were really surprised what they found. the people became social animals, going from an average of a number of... from social interactions of 54 a day to 101 a day; they doubled their interactions almost with people. But, the time spent with each person went from 33 minutes to two and a half minutes. So it seems like the virus, if you want to interpret it this way, was making them see as many people as they can and not for long; just enough time, possibly, to transmit this. And one researcher said, "Subjects who normally had very limited or simple social lives were suddenly deciding they needed to go out to bars or parties", which of course would be a great way to pass this on. The more we learn about this, the more we can learn, potentially, how to rewire ourselves, in a sense, and making—make more effective psychiatric drugs. And of course, I can't help but extrapolate a little bit more and imagine designing parasites that can enhance attributes of humans, like making us smarter or more ambitious or perhaps learn how to appreciate how good brains really taste. Interesting to see where this goes.
S: The toxoplasmosis thing is really interesting. So, first of all—
B: Oh, man.
S: —about a third of humanity on the planet is infected with Toxoplasma; about 30 percent of people worldwide and they show—there's research now showing that it's associated with the development of schizophrenia. That some people with schizophrenia may have it because of—at least it might be triggered by toxoplasmosis. Also, {w|Obsessive compulsive disorder|obsessive compulsive disorder. And what's really interesting is that some drugs which are typically used to treat schizophrenia, like haloperidol and depakote, actually have anti-toxo effects. So they may work—
B: Oh my God.
S: —quote-unquote "work against schizophrenia" because they're actually counteracting Toxoplasma itself. And that may allow us to identify which patients with schizophrenia would respond to these drugs.
E: How do we know somebody has the parasite. Blood test?
S: You can measure it. Yeah. Or—or CSF.
J: But Steve, don't a lot of people have this? I mean, a lot of people have outdoor cats—
B: Cerebrospinal fluid, Steve?
S: Yeah.
R: 30 percent of the population.
E: I heard 30 percent somewhere.
R: Yeah.
S: That's right. Can you imagine that this is actually dramatically increasing the rates of certain psychiatric diseases?
E: That means one or two of us might have it.
S: Yeah!
R: I've always assumed I had it...
(laughing)
B: I'd just assume it.
E: Explains a lot.
R: I had cats growing up that were outdoor cats; that's why.
B: I'm telling you: bacteria, viruses, parasites; they rule the goddamn world.
E: Wow, they sure do.
S: 'Cause they're thiny.
B: And us, yes.
E: They are our overlords, apparently.
R: Tiny and evil.
B: That's why I love these science fiction weapons that are these big powerful, like, guns and weapons, and it's like, no. A lot of these weapons in the future are going to be so tiny, you don't even know that they're there until you're completely overwhelmed and disassembled, right? Go small; don't go big.
S: Yeah, the superadvanced alien invasion where they actually send, like, people-sized soldiers down to the earth? It's like, nah, they would just release the nano-cloud and just convert us all.
B: Yep.
E: Yeah. Poof!
S: We would have no chance; zero chance against them. All right—
B: Unless you have it yourself.
E: But wouldn't the solar wind kind of push it all out of there? Oh well, let's not talk...
S: Eh, we're not there yet.
Genetic Transistors (26:34)
S: Jay, tell us—talking about hacking our cells, Jay's going to tell us how to do that with genetic transistors.
B: Ooh!
J: In a paper recently published in the journal Science—now, Steve, is that a good journal?
S: Science? Yeah, I've heard of it.
J: Just checking.
R: It's so good they named an entire field of study after it.
(laughing)
B: Jay, are you sure it's a journal Science and not Science-ish?
E: Science-y?
B: Now, be careful. (laughs) Yeah, Science-y.
J: So, a paper that was recently published within the last week by a team at Stanford University outlines a system of genetic transistors. I think I can just stop right there.
B: That's awesome.
E: Genetic transistors.
J: I was waiting for somebody say something.
B: But I want more!
J: These genetic-like transistors that they came up with can be inserted into living cells and turned on and off if search certain conditions are met. And this should be a major step forward in the emerging feel the synthetic biology. So, as most of you guys know, an existing transistor, the kind that we're already familiar with, is the fundamental component for modern electronic devices. It was originally developed in the 1950s and the transistor recreated the field of electronics and future computing potential; I mean, that was the beginning of all the devices that we have. In essence, the transistor allowed to have logic. In a computer, there's three functions that a computer does: it performs logic, it saves data, and it recalls data. So the real heavy lifting, in my opinion, of course, is the logic part of it; is the processing part of it. So imagine, guys, that we'll be able to have some type of logic that's happening inside our cells; inside our DNA. The researchers call their work "transcriptors" and they will be able to do things like detecting toxins in the environment inside of a cell, determine the effectiveness of medications, monitor cancer cells; the potential applications are vast. Of course, if they really fully realize this and fully achieve it, but they've hit a milestone that they think is so significant that they put the paper out. So once the transistor determines the conditions—certain conditions are met, say inside of a cell, it could then be used to make the cell do things. Like, it could... one of the biggest things I would imagine it would be able to do is just give information to your doctor. Like, this is what's happening on the cellular level—the level of toxins have hit this this marker. You know, then maybe the doctor can instruct the programming to do something, maybe to release other chemicals or, you know, how many cancer cells are you detecting? Things like that. I would imagine that would be the beginning of it.
B: Yeah, so we're talking about more than just a transistor in the cell, though, right? You need more mechanisms surrounding it; more computer components than just a transistor, I would think.
J: Yeah. I agree, Bob; I don't know how they're going to be communicating with it. I don't know if it's going to be on autopilot. I'm not quite sure of those details.
B: OK.
J: Some of the information I got: they said that... they use enzymes to control the flow of RNA proteins along a strand of DNA, and this is similar to a computer using transistors to control the flow of electrons, and that's why they're calling these these things... they're like transistors. Truehdr a lead researcher at the Stanford University of Engineering said "we're going to be able to put computers into any living cell you want. We're not going to replace the silicon computer; we're not going to replace your phone or your laptop, but we're going to get computing working in places where silicon would never work."
S: Yeah, it's a cool concept. You know, it's one of those technologies that is just very, very difficult to extrpolate into the future to see how we're going to really make the best use of it. It's interesting but almost pointless to speculate, you know, about...
B: It can go in so many different directions.
S: How it will be used, yeah. But any way we have of interacting with the body; getting information from it; closing that loop where we're reading information from it and then using that in order to do something at the cellular level has tremendous potential. But also, obviously, tremendous risks.
B: Oh, yeah.
S: 'Cause they talked about, for example, having these transistors inside cells and then when they detect the conditions that indicate that the cell is a cancer cell, they will then trigger apoptosis; basically, give the kill command for the cell to kill itself—
B: Cell death.
S: So you just basically instruct every cancer cell to kill themselves. But you know, obviously, if that went slightly awry, you know, every cell in your body decided to kill itself that would be suboptimal.
(laughing)
B: Might look cool if it all happened at once, though.
E: Something from Raiders of the Lost Ark. Final scene. Aah!
R: Steve, you're definitely the doctor I want at my bedside. Well... "How'd it go, doctor?"
E: "That was suboptimal; yeah."
R: "It was suboptimal."
(laughing)
R: Is that why my guts are eating myself from the inside out?
E: Note the time. Suboptimal.
J: It's a little scary, too; right, guys? I mean, imagine—
E: Oh gosh, yes.
J: We're going to be making these changes. Weren't we just talking on the last show about how we're going to be merging with machines, you know? Who knows if that's going to happen. Seems like it's going to happen.
R: Are we talking about that on every show?
S: It's happening.
E: (laughs) What are you saying, Rebecca?
Prescribing Placebos (31:45)
- NeuroLogica Blog: Do 97% of UK Doctors Prescribe Placebos?
S: All right; well, one more quick news item. What do you guys think of this headline—this comes from Medical News Today and generally decent medical news outlet. the headline is 97 percent of UK doctors prescribe placebos
J: I find that very unlikely
E: I think there's a problem there
R: I'm all right with it
S: sciencedaily was a little bit better David's 97 percent of you can doctors have given to patients at least once
E: OK that's more believable I think
B: what kind of placebo though?
S: There, Bob; that's the million dollar question asked on Yahoo how do you define describing placebo. so this was a survey that was rigged to produce to the exact results that the that the authors wanted to produce try to maximize the on the percentage of doctors who could be said to have ever prescribed placebos so that, we suspect, this is a way of saying "well see so alternative practitioners prescribe placebos you just doing the same thing that regular season" ah right why I was
B: so clever
S: so clever. so here are considered late divided placebos into pure and impure placebo. zero physiological effect. impure placebos are treatments that may have an effect what are being given in subway turkey doses or for conditions which they are not effective. but here's a list of what they considered to be in pure placebo: positive suggestions so if you ever say anything positive to the patient status about that a p**** bow
R: farms at the percentage is so low
S: who are the 3%
R: Right; those guys should be fired
S: Nutritional supplements for the benefit from this therapy. add probiotics for diarrhea peppermint pills for pharyngitis viral infections does the weather was there a piece of ok we will use to potentially pick up there a piece of Medicine news conventional medicine to think of this is not evidence based diagnostic practices is based on the patient request a combination such as nonessential physical examinations nonessential technical examination of the patient. so If you in there that was the most problematic for me when was the other positive suggestions really? thats use of a placebo? ashley blue uses a potentially effective therapies. Off-label use has nothing to do with whether or not it's scientific companies—in the pharmaceutical companies usually only go for one or two indications for a drug. you're not going to spend tens of millions of dollars it would take to get every possible indication is. the only would do that extend the indications for drug if it was going to expand their market. but if the evidence is there a doctors are already using it to bother getting an FDA a separate FDA indication for every little thing that the drugs used for
R: your concern how many of my friends in high school run birth control pills for acne counted as a placebo?
S: If it's off-label you know that in a survey
R: was at the time
S: I didn't want to not a central physical examinations show me on your lunch was in the absolutely need to base construct a t-rex because part of the interaction with the patient is for the visit you know the kind of a hands on, that's placebo. so anything that is just a normal part of the therapeutic relationship between a doctor and patient but that isn't a strictly evidence-based intervention Derek counting is a placebo is total nonsense
E: They forgot to list tricorder readings
S: yeah I mean designed to maximize that number doesn't look at the real number you how many positions are prescribed actual PC does the surveys said it was 12 percent ever and only 1 percent on a regular basis. 1 percent real number
B: survey says!
S: 1 percent of UK doctors prescribe placebos
R: not as good a headline
S: have one is 97 percent
E: yeah it's almost up or out so bright doesn't the static static
S: survey abuse
B: what are you going to do about this
S: and every outlet that I can see laugh it up uncritically
E: editors
S: Except for supersize basement
B: of course I really
S: should but it was really going on
E: add attendees editors are subobtimal.
S: free printing press releases so you can just put whatever propaganda you want into press release propagated through the interwebz on science news sites
B: propaganda propagation
Who's That Noisy? (36:42)
S: Evan you're gonna get up to date on Who's That Noisy.
E: last week we had a puzzle: three scientists Albert Isaac and Marie are talking to each other names of scientific books on by Jonas yes did you notice the pattern everything straight guy Evers hoping someone with Albert says Jonas has at least four books by Maxwell Isaac says no he has less or fewer than four books hahahahaha Marie says according to me Jonas has at least one book by Maxwell if you know that only one to three scientist is right how many books by Maxwell does Jonas possess what was going through it show if Albert were to be right at least it would she cleaned the store then Marie says at least one would also be right so if you cross that one out show if Marie were right at least one book then Albert at least four or Isaacs less than four got that to Albert or Isaac would also have to be right to have to cross that option out and therefore it means only Isaac can be right when he says he has less fewer than four books by Maxwell fax number ok see you in 20 so I sick this correct very nice I make sense to everyone way to go pick 3 straight forward it was a relatively easy puzzle show and judging by the number of correct answers we got from our listeners uh to be true so good jobs everyone Michael will it is this week's winner burger I getting the correct answer drawn randomly so well done you're in the final drawing at the end of the year old and what are you up to this weekend I'm doing another logic puzzle I decided to make it was a little bit more difficult for challenging mark is visiting a psychic the great Christina shot a great great Christina tells mark to think of a number 12 or three the great Christina told Mark that she will ask one question of him and he must only reply with yes no or I don't know so what one question should be great Christina asked Mark to find out exactly which number mark has chose I expect a lot of creative replies to this one WTN at the skeptics guide .org or sguforums.com is our forum and let us know. good luck everyone.
S: All right thank you Evan your welcome
S: well let's go on with our interview
Interview with Ian O'Neill (39:33)
- Discovery: Ian O'Neill
Astronomer with PhD in Solar Physics, science producer for Discovery News
S: We are joined now by Ian O'Neill. Ian, welcome to the Skeptics' Guide.
Science or Fiction (1:01:50)
S: Each week Science facts feeling 16 tell me which one is it ready for this week
R: yes he iPhone five to
S: Bob get turn things around man
B: yes and we're streak ever
S: Yeah. All right; here we go. Number 1: A new study finds that wearing a special contact lens for even a single night can correct for loss of near vision in adults with presbyopia. Item #2: New research finds that most fame is not fleeting – people who become famous tend to stay famous for years or decades. And item #3: Researchers analyzing the fossil record find that thousands of Pacific island bird species went extinct following first contact with Europeans. Rebecca, go first.
R: he's a good special contact lens presbyopia opiate drugs
S: okay I'll tell you if you're busy so it is the same as people get into the 40's typically they lose the ability to focus closeup assistant just the old age pension how to get in is baby due to focus near that develops today's call presbyopia
J: muscles are your lens not your legs because we're bridge is Right see
S: right
R: that's helpful very helpful because yeah I like I can see that working then if its a case of You Lindsay coming my Richard then maybe there's a contact lense set voice is it softens it makes a squishy. Chris stamp I screw me out of it that's really cool I hope its true and it seems reasonable. Less reasonable is the idea that people become famous send station for decades and employs it most people say famous for decades so and... I don't know these days any answer if it's for decades is this is this study examining people from at least the late 90's yeah I too that's about when we started getting to the point it did your 15 minutes of fame was becoming more and more true. so my common sense tells me that thats BS. I can think of many people whose star has dropped what is what is the qualifying as famous because
B: ding ding
R: yeah they can I be if its just the fact that I can remember these people still then OK YouTube star that nobody cares about anymore could still get recognized at a bar 10 if that's what it means then its dumb and pointless to it could be true. 1000 birds going extinct following the first contact with Europeans that's the thing that seems really easy to believe essays blush for me because I mean to Dallas is a species is a lot but Europeans really good at making things extinct add or at least Europeans rats very good at it. thousands is a lot yeah cause I think and part of me and I'm pulling that hole that one seems more reasonable to me so I feel like that's actually going to be that fiction so I'm going to go to for
S: OK Bob?
B: yeah I agree even live that Rebecca said of the contact lens one at first blush I was like no effin way but did you have your special contact lens well yeah what the hell does that mean its no special is a an annoying word can mean so many different things. how awesome would that be though the month I just started too I take it to the head of my vision is the past couple years. the fleeting Fame want yeah what the hell do you mean by famous mean you can you reach a certain level of Fame and then afterwards you did you never really weak after that level but you still recognize we have some level of family Gary Coleman a meeting never had to maintain the same be having a kid but if you know so I heard of them or whatever you do you told you would recognize a min still say yeah it's kind of famous
E: What you talkin' 'bout Robert?
Ok I said that um so yeah this is way too ambiguous easy could you know let's see that. and the third one thousand seems like a lot a work surely they were very efficient at duh making animals extinct but thousands is is a tremendous amount of money that sounds like a bite out every bird on these islands. ya I think I'm going to go with the other broad what is well.
S: OK. Evan?
E: can I take the bird one first and say that that wants to fiction
S: go right ahead
E: okay love the bird one is fiction
B: should not do that
R: he can sound confident its fine
E: I think the issue here it is the part about following first contact with Europeans. there were people on these islands swell before Europeans a long time before Europeans population of people and I'm sure that they were perhaps really the cause of a lot of the species going extinct thing it's not the Europeans want to place prior to being there.
S: and Jay
J: I agree with everyone I think the contact lens one is science. putting in maybe a shaped contact lens its reshaping your eyeball or whatever. you want about the um famous people staying famous for a long time I don't see what the big your mystery is there me once you get into the public consciousness it takes awhile for it to go away so that one I think of Sciences well so I'm going to agree and everyone is everyone right everyone thinks that he and what about the bird yet so this is either clean sweep up for us or for you
E: what is the dice a picture
J: does says its number one again
S: OK to order amber wanted to study finds that wearing a special contact lens for even a single night can correct for loss of your vision in adults is presbyopia. you guys all think this one is signed send this one is... science.
B: yea give me about it
S: so far
B: does it work so you really
R: Where can he get a prescription
S: it's not as good as you think I love the looks I did to it. here's the title of the paper refracted changes from hyperopic worth of carrot ology monovision in Presby apps Sounds exciting
J: of course yes it makes perfect sense
S: so
E: what religion day after he say
S: I had to Jakes wear is special contact lens which change the shape of the cornea and cracks for this inability to see near to focus very close ended at a descent really diopter tu the magnification potential a cornea and you just received the cornea temporarily but it is you would have to see a defect even after single night of wearing during the day to take them out it during your contact but your corneas change shape. and then they had to wear it over everyday for a week defect got a little bit you increased a little bit further towards end of the week. in the morning in the evening it was great in the morning and it was even wearing off already by the evening, of that would it was still there two significant a creek
B: sweet ok cool right one day beautiful day for to store night sleep
S: but here's the worst part about it
J: it gives you cancer
B: makes you think that makes you blind any year
E: because of the cells in dollars
R: anal leakage
B: hahaha
E: oh that is the worst
S: dojo mono vision thing
J: you can only see out of one eye?
S: only doing in one eye because your bruise your far fishin in that I see you have 1i carvision and when I premier
J: forget that I am the cyborg in plants for crazy
S: some of the subject found out a little disconcerting
R: I mean yeah I feel like that's the thing that your brain cated just too pretty could put a
S: maybe to some people not for others. but not killer distance vision was from eyes. so I don't know didn't seem that impressive 31 to read the whole study uh mono go home on a vision thing didn't didn't then lazy ass is just basically like the end result is you wearing a premier reading when someone I you know that's the century affect the classes are probably better. if I grew jade is this I breaking plans I'll hold out for those. what's going on over to: new research find that most famous not heating people become famous 10 to stay famous for years or decades. you well think this one is science so did I get you all or is it a clean sweep and this one is... science
ah
B: Yay!
S: got it changed guys totally got me this week I even tried to make this one a little bit harder
R: This was hard yours is
S: the definition of fame is actually pretty reasonable this one with a fat person. looked at the mentioning of names in newspapers to measure for things not just as you can you recognize oh yeah you like I'm 20 years ago are you actually
S: talking about you did if you two people talking about you in the press okay I'm a selfish again I was that the people who got needs the most often to take during a period 2004-2009 out were already famous city is the most people are being talked about are people that have been famous for a long time; they weren't people who were just famous over short. Time what they found was about 96 percent of people who are the famous people are being talked about have this long term same directions to 4 percent but but most people do the car next meeting it's the developed their family in this Jay said once you get into that in the public on the public consciousness you tend to stay there. soon as this goes to however go little bit against previous thinking its a whole 15 minutes of fame concept it was accepted is this trip is constant turnover of people at the famous potato that's not true not a lot of turnover is very to turn overs actually quite slow; that most people have stable family for lunch. To vais want it guess who Ben 10 most famous people were in 2004-2009 based upon their name appearing most frequently in the media?
B: ah God Jackson Michael Jackson
S: nope no Shana top 10 a.m. to 10
R: Do world leaders count?
S: this hold up for politics Entertainment & Sports
R: I know I could bush pinner
S: so you're the names app Jamie Foxx Bill Murray Natalie Portman Tommy Lee Jones Naomi Watts, Howard Hughes, Phil Spector, John Malkovich Adrien Brody, and Steve Buscemi.
R: Really?
Wow super fast food yet
B: how is that possible?
R: for hours is wife cell I guess he's really earned his place to it
E: Adrien Brody?
J: There's gotta be a reason why those people are coming up, you know you could've been a mean about them something
S: right they said they were already in the media 3 years really associate just that it wasn't just a brief anime. anyway, let's move on to number 3: researchers analyzing the fossil record find the 2002 Pacific island bird species went extinct following first contacted your pee and you are all correct it this one is the fiction, but which one of you figured out why this was the Texan. what are you do you guys think?
R: I like Evan's
S: Evan nailed it yeah yeah
S: its not a thousands of species that's accurate. but it was all before first contact with Europeans who is all in the in the three thousand years before first contact with Europeans
B: Plus does yours have a long time will you could do we could do that used to be added
S: completely devastated the native populations of the seven islands. more than just burns with you this is business but the recent survey was looking at more specifically prehistoric bird extensions and it was greatest this is not a big surprise it was greatest number to could not fly; it was greatest in birds to run very few island is a POS tomorrow nun Flying Nun passerine seabirds close to a thousand species just for them alone again to complete a tally of all land birds and see birds we should totally numbers in the thousands but they're still completing a survey. a very interesting to talk two-thirds of the populations of these islands with extinct in the period from first human settlement to first European contact. yeah so the people that we now think about it the gentle made it to live in one with nature does a completely devastated their environment
E: right
S: right
E: they have to survive too
S: interestingly again just a lotta lotta headlines use the Dodo as the reference you know
R: when I was in the Pacific Islands
S: no just do that was from Europeans does when he stinks for you huh huh not do this to this isn't quite the dodo effect is it away in that the dodo is for the prototypical bird susceptible to extinction by humans but the different in that the Dodos post European and they're talking but surely pre-european contact name from human sound so you humans reverse humans go extinct Shin of local populations follows. especially Island very susceptible in today lots and lots of species with small ranges because of the heat shield a day down to the river to the Highlander small cluster islands
E: we are an invasive species
S: yes absolutely old invasive species absolutely so good job everyone thought I would get you a
B: job good job done
S: good job done
Skeptical Quote of the Week (1:15:16)
S: All right; Jay, finish us up in a quote.
J: this is a quote that was sent in by a listener named Sebastian beckwat what from Canada this is Michael Pollan from a book the Botany of Desire. Very sexual.
Design in nature is but a concatenation of accidents, culled by natural selection until the result is so beautiful or effective as to seem a miracle of purpose.
J: Michael Pollan!
S: Right. Design in nature.
(laughing)
R: Good underwhelmed response. Whatever, Michael Pollan.
E: We're all absorbed in the moment.
S: It was better than last week's Kierkegaard quote; I'll him give that.
B/E: (laughs)
R: Poor Kierkegaard; no respect.
E: Yeah. I tell ya.
S: All right, guys.
Announcements (1:16:07)
S: Well, the next two episodes will be—are the shows that will be recording at [http:// necss.org NECSS]
R: exciting a
S: Always fun; very exciting one live showing private show up it'll be the next two weeks so it will be seeing you guys next weekend we should be well this when this episode does up will be at NECSS having a good time
B: oh I can't wait in
E: one of our rare moment when we are all together at the same venue
S: This will probably be the only time this year, actually, we'll be at the same place same time
R: Wow
E: to make the most of it.
S: Absolutely.
J: We're going to go crazy.
S: All right, guys; thanks for joining me this week
R: thank you, Steve
B: you're welcome, Steve
E: Thanks, Steve
S: And until next week, this is your Skeptics' Guide to the Universe.
References
- ↑ The Telegraph: There are zombies among us
|
|
|